Q & A Friday :: What are we to make of the Nightline debate featuring Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron?
Most of you have either seen or heard of the debate that aired this past Wednesday on ABC’s Nightline featuring Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron opposing a couple of atheists. The video for the debate is online at ABC’s website. I watched what was aired on Wednesday and then saw what was played on the web and I just have a few thoughts on the debate.
I want to say upfront that I am thankful for the creativity and zeal by which The Way of the Master (Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron) go about evangelism.
With this being said, they should never have agreed to this debate. From my understanding Comfort stated that he could prove the existence of God within minutes and without using the Bible. Aside from the apparent arrogance of such a statement (resting on personal wisdom), this apologetics approach does not have Scriptural basis.
Comfort and Cameron conceded to the atheists and were willing to set aside the ultimate authority and try to claim some sort of neutral ground, in this case it was science and reason. The minute they did this they lost. They then pit their wisdom (call it what you want but at the end of the day this is what it is) against the atheists’. If they had won the debate, which is debatable, the victory would have rested on wisdom. Even after the debate the people who were interviewed were not impressed with what Comfort and Cameron presented. The whole tenor of this debate put man in the judgment seat of God and this is never the right posture. God and his word sit in judgment of us, never us in judgment of him.
Ray Comfort’s “three irrefutable evidences of God’s existence” were:
-Creation for it shows the knowledge of a Creator
-Conscience for it brings the knowledge of a need for forgiveness
-Conversion for it brings an experiential knowledge of God
In this section where Comfort used a Coke can to illustrate the existence of God (this was at least a little better than Cameron’s illustrations of transitional animals, which made him look almost as silly as the theory). Comfort then did his typical gospel presentation. I applaud Comfort’s effort in bringing the knowledge of sin via the Law; however, he never describes sin in terms of rebellion and depravity. He talks so much about what we do and never gets around to talking about who we are (and this is not just here in this debate where there is a 13 min time limit, but throughout what I have heard from him.)
Furthermore, he never makes justification clear. And frankly the gospel makes no sense if we have not been declared righteous in God’s sight. We have all of this buildup of sin but then no understanding or explanation of the imputation of divine righteousness. It leaves me wanting more, kind of like Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion. He points back to the cross as the basis for forgiveness but that basis is at best unclear without the imputation of divine righteousness and the complete atoning work of Jesus Christ through his substitutionary death upon Calvary.
Kirk Cameron spoke about his hope that people would hear the message and be opened to it through their comments. However, the gospel itself is what brings that power (Rom. 1.16). Therefore, we must be careful to bring out the gospel in clarity.
Consider the Apostle Paul, he was traveling to Corinth and he could have packed wisdom or miracles…for that is what the people wanted…and it is something that he had. However, what did he bring? He brought the gospel in unvarnished clarity. Paul knew that though it was foolishness and a stumbling block to some, it was the power of God unto salvation to others, therefore he preached it. If our goal is the conversion of men we must bring out the tools for conversion and these tools have never been well-reasoned arguments, scientific proofs, or silly graphics, they have always been the word of God proclaiming the Son of God to the glory of God (cf. 1 Cor. 1 & 2).
They may still laugh at you and others may not believe (cf. Acts 17.30-34). However, you know that you have been faithful to proclaim that which God has said and that which is the only means by which they might be saved. If we believe this gospel is powerful then the most loving and humble thing to do is preach it!
.
–Fridays are Q&A Fridays here at IrishCalvinist.com so if you have a question fire it in to…
.
Possibly Related posts:
- Ray Comfort and Peter Sellers Separated at Birth?
- Greg Bahnsen quotes on apologetics
- I Don’t Have Enought Faith to be an Athiest
- Being Ready
- The 60 Second Gospel
25 Responses to “Q & A Friday :: What are we to make of the Nightline debate featuring Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron?”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Updates
Sponsors
About
Twitter Updates
- @LAjoey That is what I'm saying...it's the best thing to come down the chutes for some time. Right on time for me.
- The Town of Red Beard has Fallen http://is.gd/eZCSN
- @joethorn That always messes me up. Even the tail wind jacks w me. Have fun w that.
Recent Comments
Recommended Products
Random Posts
Most Read Articles
Tags
Archives
Powered by Wordpress | Design by ElegantThemes | All Content © Erik Raymond 2006-2010 
Erik Raymond's Blog by Erik Raymond is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.IrishCalvinist.com.
Good thoughts Erik.
I like the blog redesign.
Erik, you are spot-on. Ray and Kirk should have never surrendered the “high-ground.” By letting the unbelievers set the framework for discussion, they immediately brought it to the level of “your opinion vs. my opinion” and “my logical argument vs. yours.” By so doing you have surrendered to the unbeliever and enabled his rebellion against God and His truth even more (Romans 1, in suppressing the truth in unrighteousness). Since when can we let the lunatics in the asylum determine what is sanity? Apart from humble submission to the only objective viewpoint in this universe, the revelation of God in His Word, we are delusional.
I have appreciated, though, Ray’s use in his WOTM videos the Law of God as it is intended, to show people that they are sinners and stand condemned before a righteous and holy God, and that the only way is Christ Jesus. Maybe Ray (and Kirk) need to re-examine their presuppositions about apologetics [huge pun intended].
Presuppositional? You wonder if some have never heard of the term…I also like Ray for some of his presentation but for this he should go and read Romans 1 again to understand man and the suppression of truth and then follow that up with Romans 10:17…faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
I agree…show them their sin..but you had better show them righteousness too not just give facts. Yes Jesus died but what did he purchase in that death and what does he provide in that redemption?
I think I am more miffed about the lack of clarity of justification than I am of the silly graphics and illustrations of coke cans and bananas. We give him a pass because he is so heavy on sin…but that heaviness often neglects the heart of sin (who we are) and instead emphasizes the effects (what we do). If sin is not seen as rebellion and idolatry and Christ as the reconciler of this alienation and the provider of righteousness then it makes no sense. You don’t have to be presuppositional to do this (cf. RC Sproul).
I though Comfort and Cameron did pretty good in this debate. You would think from some Christian bloggers (NOT This One) they were blown off the debate stage. I admit I have not seen the entire debate but what I saw was that Comfort and Cameron appeared relaxed while the athiest duo appeared uncomfortable and angry. Their performance was no Apostle Paul on Mar’s Hill (but who could do that?) but what I saw they did okay. Maybe it helped put some doubt in some athiests and they will look deeper.
Great post, and great thoughts about Comfort and Cameron. I was so refreshed by their ministry when I first heard them and their methods (10 yrs ago), but over time I have come to realize precisely what you have said about them here. I wish they would stick to street evangelism and stay off the air (and away from fruit and Coke cans). God bless.
[...] 13 May 2007 Critical Thinking On Comfort And Cameron Posted by Chris Gates under Philosophy of Religion , Religion , Evangelism/Missions , Theology ,Philosophy , Religion/Philosophy Check out this post from Irish Calvinist about the Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron debate with the atheists on Nightline. [...]
I did not see the debate personally. Of the reviews that I have read, I think that this one is most clear in its analysis of TWOTM side of the debate.
I particularly like your observation of WOTM’s focus on what we do, rather than who we are. I think that’s a spot on critique.
Pastor Chris
EvangelismCoach.org
Erik, thanks for this post. I really appreciate the WOTM stuff. They’ve taught me a ton about Evangelism. No method (humanly speaking) is perfect and while they could do a better job on some things I think we should be a little slower to speak and quicker to listen. I agree with Welshman…I’ve seen Christians just hammering Ray & Kirk as if they were complete heretics…crazy!
Something I haven’t seen anyone address yet is the question of ABC’s censorship of Ray & Kirk’s message. We all know what a joke the PC driven media is. I only watched a few of the clips but I can’t remember them using the name of Jesus at all (please correct me if I’m wrong). You know the big wigs at ABC are not about to let some guy stand up and start going off about justification by faith, while reading the Bible to the American people and telling how they better trust in Jesus.
If this is the case, I think they did a pretty good job. If not, I agree with other posters who say that they could have said a lot more than they did. Either way, we all trust that God is sovereign, right? I believe he will use this debate for His glory regardless of who “won”. Our hope is not in TV and wishing for some “mass exposure”. And let’s remember, as Erik said, “If our goal is the conversion of men we must bring out the tools for conversion and these tools have never been well-reasoned arguments, scientific proofs, or silly graphics, they have always been the word of God proclaiming the Son of God to the glory of God.”
I agree that the gospel was not clearly presented (even though that wasn’t the task at hand according to either side). What gospel did show up was only a partial story. Comfort made it seem that if we recognize that we broke the ten commandments and say we’re sorry, we’ll then know we should try harder to obey them. It was a very confusing and mixed presentation on all sides.
Mike
Did anyone else notice the athiest say in reference to either Kirk or Ray (i don’t remember which): “Oh my God! What a …!” I thought he didn’t believe in God!
A couple comments:
1) I think ABC / the atheists misunderstood Ray’s claim. Ray said that he would prove God’s existence without using the Bible (which he did) but he never said that he wouldnt use the Bible AT ALL.
2) With the previous statement made, I would like to point out that Ray actually DID use the Bible for all 3 of his proofs. The creation proves the Creator argument, although he did it without having the Bible opened, came straight out of the Bible (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:21). I thought it was awesome that he didnt give in to there “scientific authority” so-called intellectual expectations and instead proved God’s existence in a way a child could understand it. The atheists not accepting this proof is a testimony against their suppresion of truth, even so it doesnt change the fact that Ray delivered what he said he would deliver.
3)Although I would have preferred a clearer more indepth explanation of the Gospel, let’s consider what DID get proclaimed: “Unless you turn away from your sins and trust Jesus with your life, you will perish.”
Erik,
I had not heard of this debate. I will watch it at a later time. In the past I have used WOTM methods to evangelize instead of the FAITH methods we were asked to used at WS. I agree that we often give Ray and his ministry a pass because he does try and bring the unbeliever to a point where they recognize their sin. I also understand your point about neglecting the heart of the matter. Our position before a holy God and what was done at the cross by Christ the God/man. The righteous one died for the unrighteous and those whom the Father will draw to Himself will be declared righteous by the Father because the Son paid the price in full.
Thanks for the post. It is a good thing to think through these things.
I think that you have forgotten that Ray Comfort dealt with these atheists as he deals with hecklers during street evangelism: the people who are watching the debate and saying nothing may well have tender hearts and *those* are the ones who will hear and respond. You have also forgotten that most people simply do not understand terms like ‘righteousness, imputation, propritiation’ and so on. Ray speaks simply and directly to the ordinary man and woman, not in order to impress sceptical and critical fellow believers. Those of us who did not have the guts to get up there on TV had best be quiet about it. Some christians have also made snobbish remarks about his lack of a theological degree. Peter was a simple fisherman, David a shepherd boy, Jesus a carpenter. How would we receive them today — with jibes about their lack of ‘real’ education?
BTW, if you listen to the radio show Way of the Master, you will hear many thorough treatments of questions from listeners, that demonstrate the depth of Bible reading that the WOTM team possess. Witnessing is not about parading our knowledge before others, and if I am to explain the gospel to a child I should be able to include serious concepts without using befuddling vocabulary.
We should be praying, not criticising, so I shall do that now.
Thank you for the interesting discussion
A
AMEN!
I agree with Anthea!
I have two thoughts about evangelism and apologetics that I thought were worthy throwing out there.
1) The goal of evangelizing a so called atheist should never be to prove God to them, but rather to show them that they are a fool for even thinking such a thing. (14:1, 53:1). The reality is they know who God is, they just want nothing to do with Him (Rom. 1:18-23). Personally, I think it is more prudent to try to show a professing atheist that they really do believe in a god (i.e. themselves), and that their profession does not match their practice. For example, they asserted that atheists could do good without the threat of hell, but they have no basis for “good” unless they have One true God. (I would really like to see a person try to prove atheism…which they can’t do, because it requires a “belief” system that cannot be tested scientifically)
2) Saving faith must be a response special revelation, the word of God. “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” (Rom. 10:17) His sheep willhear His voice and follow Him. It is only the gospel of the glory of Christ, who as the image of God reveals the character of God to us,(2 Cor. 4:4-6) that can produce genuine faith in a person. You cannot have evangelism without the evangel.
Anthea: I am not questioning guts but the content and methodology. Which, by the way I think I am perfectly within my right to do. There is actually a motive here and that is not to discredit or impugn people but to use this as an example to promote biblical apologetics, the sufficiency of Scripture and the need to make justification clear. I don’t think it is a matter of guts but rather theological principles that would prevent me from shelving the Bible in favor of scientific proofs or reasons.
The need to simplify our content and language does not override our calling to faithfully communicate the gospel. See this post for an example of evangelizing a bunch of 5 year olds and their parents.
What I find strange, is that Ray always speaks of not entering into an intellectual debate with people when witnessing to them. He says the battle isn’t “won” this way. By using the lay, we are speaking on a level where the conscience is touched, and the Holy Spirit moves. Intellectual battles can go on and on with no results, but use the law, prick the conscience (sometimes) and the power of the gospel is unleashed. I too am surprised they said yes to this debate. I didn’t see it, but have heard some negative reports since.
thanks for your thoughts…
Thank you, Erik, for replying to my post. I am in the UK, so am just picking it up now after our shopping trip town. I really appreciated the reference to your post on witnessing to children.
Since the Word has power, it’s best to use it — but Mr Comfort says that he only claimed that he *could* prove God without it, not that he would not use the Bible.
Anyway, I suppose that my point was that any speaker could have challenged the Blasphemy Challenge people to a debate, but where were all the well-qualified volunteers? If Ray was inadequate, that is not to his shame, but rather it shames those who could have done better but did not step forward more promptly to confront Brian Sapient. The debate has got us all thinking about how to do our part to witness effectively. I am not sure about apologetics. We have a great show here called Unbelievable, where Christians debate with all sorts of people. But I sometimes feel like they are going all round the houses and avoiding the gospel, when the power of a simple gospel presentation should have been included.
I am not sure of my facts, but this atheist seems very angry and bitter – like a backslider, or the offended child of Christian parents. Perhaps he will respond to arguments, but somehow he seemed to spiritually hard for that.
I like this site and plan to visit again – it reminds me of Pyromaniacs.
A
I have to disagree with your post
Here is why.
“From my understanding Comfort stated that he could prove the existence of God within minutes and without using the Bible. Aside from the apparent arrogance of such a statement (resting on personal wisdom), this apologetics approach does not have Scriptural basis.”
Apparently you are unfamiliar with “classical apologetics” (R.C. Sproul has a book on this and by the same title, or you could simply read the reformers). To my knowledge Comfort is a classical apologist and if you had paid closer attention there is a huge Scriptural basis for such an argument. Paul understands God’s existence to be self evident (read Romans) not beause of man’s wisdom, as the author of this post claims, but because God has so clearly revealed Himself; this is not to say that men can be saved apart from Scripture as Romans 10:17 clearly states otherwise.
Secondly, I have to disagree with this statement: “I applaud Comfort’s effort in bringing the knowledge of sin via the Law; however, he never describes sin in terms of rebellion and depravity. He talks so much about what we do and never gets around to talking about who we are (and this is not just here in this debate where there is a 13 min time limit, but throughout what I have heard from him.)” Clearly you have not read or listened to much of Ray Comfort his evangelism method is one of the best at establishing our identity as rebellious depraved sinners, as opposed to good people who sin.
(Just for the record…this is not the same Keith Walters who is a Deacon at Omaha Bible Church)
Keith, my point here is not to discredit or impugn Comfort or his ministry. Contrary to your assertions, I am familiar with both. I am also familiar with both the classical and the evidentialist approach to apologetics. I am a presuppositionalist who would grab Romans 1 and ardently defend why I do what I do as well.
I maintain that a major defect in WOTM’s evangelism program is the lack of clarity regarding righteousness, both deficient (depravity) and sufficient (justification).
I think our response should simply be the gospel. Don’t get me wrong. I am all for apologetics in certain circumstances. However, this Rational Response Squad (RRS) is cynical and their goal is to undermine the absolute authority of Scripture by exploiting the weakness of the church in America as a whole. I think rather than wasting energy on trying to “prove” the existence of God, that we should start major efforts to reform our churches so that when groups like the RRS rise up, they are met by strong churches and believers that are not afraid of them. From what I can tell, Christians are almost afraid of the RRS, or at least many responses seem to be a knee jerk reactions out of fear that the these atheists are going to do more damage. Why? Why are are acting in so much fear? We should press on with the gospel just as we would had RRS never arisen. I pray, however, that this would be a wake up call to the church in America to think more deeply so that God would be glorified by the strength of His church. May the gospel be our battle cry because it is the true power unto salvation. Apologetics are great, but lead with the gospel. We serve a sovereign God! He is in control, so we should not fret. Press on dear brothers and sisters! God has won the battle and his elect will be redeemed! Press on with the gospel!
I like to say it’s nice to see a Christian Blog that does not include slandering of Ray and Kirk for their efforts!
I watched this video a year after it originally aired. I was quite shocked by the poor debating skills from both the “rational” response squad and Way of the Master. Two worst groups could not have been chosen to represent these two opposing sides. It makes one wonder how low our journalistic standards have fallen. Comfort and Cameron get much of their science wrong, and unfortunately, the rational squad is unable to articulate a decent response. The rational squad makes as many glaring errors in their own historical facts, such as claiming there is no evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. The rational squad is disrespectful and their body language is openly hostile, Cameron seems to have difficult time formulating clear thoughts, Comfort is the best speaker and clearest thinker of the four, and that isn’t saying much. I disagree with all four of them.